get_asset

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the non-obvious TTL refresh side effect, which is valuable beyond a plain read operation. However, it omits other traits like required permissions or error behavior, so it is not maximally transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence that efficiently communicates both the main purpose and a key side effect, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and the significant TTL side effect. An output schema exists, so return details are handled. The lack of explicit alternatives or operational caveats makes it slightly incomplete, but it is largely adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for asset_id, and the description does not explain the parameter format or its relationship beyond the tool name. The phrase 'a single asset' indirectly ties asset_id to the asset, but this is insufficient to fully clarify the parameter's semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' plus the resource 'a single asset's current state', clearly distinguishing it from list_assets (which would retrieve multiple assets). The parenthetical about refreshing TTL adds further scope clarification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a single asset's state is needed, and the TTL refresh hints at a reason to use it (extending asset life). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving guidance at the implied level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.